Read this:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3191529.ece

The conclusion is left as an exercise for the student.

S

Tags: human nature, marriage, women
Current Mood: cynical

Thought I was gone, didn't you? No such luck, infidels! Been busy, that's all. Anyway, a recent online discussion I happened to read commented on how women are having a harder time getting married, putting it off until later, etc, etc. There was much speculation about education and income levels, population patterns, who lives where, and at one point relative obesity levels in various areas of the country even got trotted out.

Well, that's silly.

The real explanation is that men are finally catching on that marriage is not a rational economic or social choice in many circumstances.

Now the social side of it is pretty obvious (famous divorce industry saying: "In most divorces, the man wants out, the woman wants revenge.") Being separated from your kids at the whim of a vengeful and irrational ex-wife, vilification, emotional upheaval, forced relocation and rearrangement of social structure (friends get divvied up just like the furniture, and just like the furniture, she'll get most of them.) It's a bummer, dude.

But to me the economics of the situation are sadly neglected in most calculations, even with the (relatively large but in absolute terms still tiny) increase in prenups and so forth. Let's look at the actual economic underpinnings of the arrangement, shall we?

Okay, first off, there are literally an infinite number of financial situations that could apply. Obviously my calculations are just an example. But I think they'll be a startling eye-opener for anybody prepared to think "outside the box" and apply economic analysis to affairs of the heart. And this is a good analysis, because even though everybody would probably tell you that you can't put a price on love, what you are going to have at the end of the day is *not* the love, but the vicious consequences of divorce and the reality of post-divorce life. If you can honestly say that you'll value memories of love (and remember that that "love" is going to be shown for what it really is during the divorce process, so be sure to apply a reasonable discount rate, Sparky) over anything else, you can stop reading now.

Still here? Good. Let's do some math.

Let's assume that we have a typical middle-class couple, who meet in college or just after it, and marry at 25. They do the marriage thing, have two kids, and then it all goes to hell somewhere around forty. Irreconcilable differences. Remorse, remorse! It's over. Time for the postgame review.

Now, as I've said before, I'm coming at this from the point of view of a man, 'cause that's where I live. If some female would like to refute any of this, I'd love to play. And I readily admit that more than a few divorces are caused by hubby boinking the babysitter. (Mine wasn't, BTW: neither of us, to the best of my knowledge and belief, committed any infidelities or alleged any. Didn't make it much nicer.) But I'm going to show you why marriage is a bad idea for men. If somebody wants to show why it's a bad idea for women, I'm all ears. If somebody wants to show why it's a good idea for women, I'll laugh heartily and say, "Duh." Anyway, on we go.

Let's be generous and say that the couple's income did well. We'll assume a $30K job for the husband right out of school, and increasing to a comfortable $100K/year. We'll also assume that they live in a place with a reasonable cost of living and they've got a nice house and some assets. Base numbers:

Total income for the marriage period: Let's call it an even million. This assumes a smooth income curve (which actually produces a number of $975K. Close enough.)
Value of home: $250K (Housing crisis? What housing crisis?) with an equity, say, of $100K.
Net worth excluding home: $100K.

So, we've got assets of $200K, an income for the husband of $100K/year, two kids and a divorce. The American Dream, let me show you it!

First off, she gets half. Of everything. (Or more, but let's be generous to the poor schmuck.) She wants to keep the house so the kids don't have to move schools, etc. Fair enough, he loves his kids and this is rough on them.

But wait... that would mean he would get ALL the cash. That's not going to fly. So what will really happen is that they'll keep the house and "sell it later." (Yeah, right.) And she gets $50K and he gets $50K. (We'll assume that current income pays the divorce costs, which it won't, but for the sake of the argument.)

Current status: Man $50K and no house, $8300/month pretax. Woman $50K and house with kids.

Now, we don't do alimony in this enlightened day and age, oh my Goodness me no. However, she's been out of the job market writing her novel or whatever the fuck she does all day while he's working. She can't maintain the household until she gets a job and she can't do that until she brings herself up to speed on whatever it is she's going to do. So she gets... say it with me... "maintenance." Which is nothing like alimony. Uh-uh. What's she going to need? Call it $2000 a month for the mortgage and household (she'd likely get more if she asked, which she likely would, but we're being conservative) to supplement whatever she makes at McDonald's. I'm sure she'll be earning the big bucks in three years or so. Let's limit it to that.

Current status: Man $50K and no house, $6300/month pretax. Woman $50K, house with kids, $2000/month.

Now that maintenance? That's just to keep the sheriff from the door. Doesn't go to the kids' needs, like food, medicine, college, and iPods. No, we have child support for that. Kids eat a lot, and SoaD MP3's aren't free. Let's give 'em each a grand a month.

Current status: Man $50K and no house, $4300/month pretax. Woman, $50K, house with kids, $4000/month.

Are you starting to see where this is going? The husband is giving away HALF his pretax income (although he has to pay taxes on the whole lot!) He has to live on the rest, and maintain a separate household. A quarter of his remaining income is going to go just to keep him in some shitbox singles apartment.

Let's extrapolate over that three-year maintenance period (although they rarely end that fast.) Over that time, the husband will have given the wife $144K. Admittedly, half of that was for his kids that he loves and let's assume she actually spends it on them. (Notice how many of these assumptions are giving the wife the benefit of the doubt? The only benefit of the doubt the husband gets is assuming that he pays so he doesn't go to JAIL.) But still, that's at least sixty grand he gave her just for the privilege of having been married to her.

Now I'm going to get really nasty. Love, of course, is priceless, at least until it runs out. But let's do a little quantitative analysis. Is the screwing he got worth the screwing he's getting? An interesting question. Leaving aside the value of the kids - who likely as not are going to be inclined to support brave old Mommy in her golden years as opposed to mean old Dad who left them - because if you want kids, it's no longer all that required to get married for the purpose - sex itself is an objective measure of value. (Ask Eliot Spitzer.)

More assumptions. Let's assume that they experienced a smooth sex curve, and went from four times a week (newlyweds) to a more typical twice a month (darn kids.) That yields a (highly theoretical) total number of approximately 1700 sexual encounters (again there's some rounding up in that.)

Now, just for the money he gives her after the marriage, that works out to $35 per sexual encounter. Reasonable. Quite a good price, really. But factor in the other crap and one wonders if $35/per plus the subsequent financial strain is worthwhile. Subjective, I guess.

Let's expand. We'll assume that a third of the marital income went to the wife's needs and wants (IMO and IME ridiculously low, but we're being nice.) That's $333K more of money the husband made that she got. We won't factor in the assets because that would be double-dipping - income paid for assets. (Not that that would stop HER attorney.)

Now we're up to $232/per. Hmm. While of course I don't partake of such illicit delights, from a little research on Craigslist it seems like there are many nice ladies of negotiable affection who offer a reasonable service menu in that price range. And when you're done they go away without wanting the title to your house. If the theoretical non-married husband had decided to save up and just indulge in love for sale *once* a week instead of their marital average of twice a week, that's almost $500 a throw. Somebody would love him long time for that much. (And we're totally ignoring the fact that a single man with his average income could probably score reasonable amounts of tail for dinner and drinks.)

Obviously, this all contains so many assumptions and simplifications that it's not going to get published in The Economist anytime soon. But it's at least within shouting distance of a reasonable expectation of what a man could get if a marriage went south on him. It would be much cheaper and far less emotionally devastating to hire prostitutes when you want sex and to adopt kids if you want 'em (that part's even noble) than to get married. The rational economic choice is not to do it, guys.

If you don't believe me, have a look at this essay, which makes mine look positively wimpy:

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/dont-get-married/

S

Tags: alimony, child support, maintenance, marriage
Current Mood: cynical

To re-use one of my favorite sarcastic hyperboles, if I had a dollar for every time I had heard a variant on the phrase, "Porn is bad because men get unrealistic expectations about women's bodies from it," I would be beaming my wisdom to you weary seakers of Truth from my own private space station.

Alas, it seems likely I will die 'mongst the smog and the crowds, and until then will have to push my pessimistic Pravda through the pedestrian series of tubes we all know and love. Be that as it may, attend: The phrase described contains a fatal error of overgeneralization.

To wit, while many "mainstream porn" actresses do in fact have bodies attainable only through the Wonders of Science, porn in all its gooey glory is actually quite a wide and varied field of artistic endeavour. Indeed, series such as "All Natural Sluts" and the unbelieveable variety of amateur porn indicate that there is a wide, gaping, quivering demand for porn containing not Barbie, but Barb from Accounting, who's cute and all, but a bit flat-chested and perhaps overendowed in the booty area. (But not so much as to lead to inquiries about rear-facing implants.)

No, if there is some unrealistic expectation (and there is) that men need porn to both engender and satisfy, it is not that all women should resemble Angelina Jolie only with slightly fewer clothes. It in point of fact has nothing to do with any particular "look" at all, and it explains the popularity of almost every form of porn save the ones which do require true anti-social pathology (say, real Snuff porn, or pornography involving prepubescent children.)

This Fiction That Dare Not Speak Its Name is the idea that there are women who really, really enjoy sex, and who will have it frequently, enthusicastically, and with great abandon. And whilst doing so, will celebrate it in all its slimy, sloppy glory.

Gasp!

Now, if you're the sort who believes that sex is somehow inherently evil, there's no point you going any further. You already know why porn is bad - it's porn. 'Nuff said. This is addressed to those who think they are "liberal" about sexuality but still think that porn is anti-feminist/humanist/social/realist.

Of course it is, you lackwits!

At least, it's anti-realist. The others, it depends on definition. That's the whole point. Men want women who want to have sex like men want to have sex. The exact expression of that wanting varies - it could be that it means that a man wants a woman who likes to have anal sex four or five times a day. It could mean that a man wants a woman who is so excited about the man having sex with her that she wants him to ejaculate all over her breasts and then lick it off. It could mean that a man wants a woman who wants to have sex with men and women alternating except in Leap Years. That stuff varies infinitely and, as I said, is far from the monolithic mass of mammary enhancements that some would have you believe porn comprises.

What they all have in common is that the women are wholeheartedly embracing the idea of having sex. Enjoying it with all their beings. Even in more obscure fetishes (like dumping marshmallow creme all over a girl or having her trample tiny army men) the idea that the woman is really into it is almost always present.

Now, I'll grant you, there are few real women who really do love sex so much, and practice it so regularly, that for instance a few minutes of petting permits them to take a massive man-member up the back entrance with nothing but enjoyment. In that sense, it's completely fair to say that porn engenders unrealistic expectations. But that, in my opinion, is too fine a point to put on it.

The real problem is that the vast majority of relationships start out with more sex, that women far more often (although far from exclusively!) wind down the sexual side of their relationships more than men do or want to, and that men often feel that sex is some kind of reward for good behavior or to be attained by navigating a maze of preconditions which are not specified, may change at any moment, and which may or may not actually end at said goal at any given point in time. So of course the idea that there are women who just want to have sex because sex is fun and it feels good to them is an almost irresistable compulsion to consider.

If those women also happen to conform to their idea of physical perfection, or happen to enjoy their particular favorite sexual acts, all the better, and given the choice of porn which is so configured and porn which isn't, of course they'll choose the former. But given the choice of porn which contains women enthusiastically enjoying sex for the sake of sex, and no porn at all (short of porn that contains things they find actively repulsive) of course they'll choose the porn. Men need and want sex (although of course they are infinitely variable as individuals) far more than women do. Women may think that they want sex as much as men do, but let's be honest: if they did, there'd be a lot more sex. If men can't have enough real sex, they'll have fantasy sex. If they can't have fantasy sex, they'll become mullahs and have women stoned to death for even appearing to enjoy sex or possibly for being capable of having it at all. Those are pretty much your three choices, ladies. Choose wisely.

S

Tags: expectations, pornography, sex, unrealistic
Current Mood: cynical

Incidentally, although he is ten times the writer I am or will ever be, I was largely inspired to create this occasional journal by Fred Reed, of:

http://www.fredoneverything.net

You should go and read his blog or maybe just send him some money in a plain brown envelope.

Well, he lives in Mexico, the lucky sod, so maybe envelopes full of money are a bad idea now I think about it. PayPal is at your service, however.

S

I recently ran across this article:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article2786172.ece

which, to summarize, relates anecdotes about women who decided not to have sex with their husbands anymore and then were shocked - shocked, I tell you - to learn that their husbands were cheating on and/or leaving them. It then dicusses the matter more generally. Some interesting blog-cussion on it here, if such things interest you:

http://candyposes.com/blog.html/?p=329

Now, this got me thinking about the lesser included offense of pornography. (Note: anyone who uses the term "porn addict" in discussing and/or replying to this topic will be mocked in ways which would make a French knight weep.) You hear all the time about people (both women and men) whose partners get so into porn that they spend all their money, install a Kleenex(R) dispenser and a bucket at their computer desks, etc, etc. "How can they do this, when they have a real-life partner right here?" is their woeful cry. The discussion usually then degenerates into how people in porn are unrealistic in appearance and action and how it perpetuates unhealthy body images and blah, blah, blah.

It should be noted that the problem of women who obsess on "housewife porn" - e.g. "romance" novels and soap operas - is rarely brought into this debate, although in my opinion there's no moral, ethical or practical difference between a man who devotes his erotic energy to digital Girls Gone Wild after his wife goes to bed and a woman who lies in bed reading Harlequin Spice paperbacks while her husband does without. Nor do I see any difference between observing that men get unrealistic physical and sexual expectations from their porn and observing that women get unrealistic emotional and social expectations from theirs. I am an equal opportunity offender and am quite willing to believe the worst of either sex, I'm just writing from my point of view.

Well, there might be something to all this talk of unrealistic expectations. However, in my observation, the real "vicious cycle of porn" has much simpler origins, and they're related to the sort of thing discussed in the above article: the unrealistic expectations come later. They may cause problems, but they are not the cause of the problems. The chain of events goes something like this:

1) One partner, for whatever reason, is not getting what they need from the other in the sex department. (We'll refer to them as "A" and "B," respectively.)

2) A thinks, "Well, B is under a lot of stress/not feeling well/has Mercury in retrograde/whatever, so I'll just take care of myself." And so it is done. No harm, no foul.

3) Here's where the problem comes up. If (2) is an occasional thing, A will probably react similarly (and heck, next week it might be reversed and B does the same.) However, if (2) goes on for too long or on a too-regular basis, A is going to get bored with sneaking off to the bathroom after B is asleep or whatever and will search out something to make the experience more interesting. (cue dramatic music)

4) A gets online or goes to the store and buys some porn. (It may be labeled "erotica" or "Gray's Anatomy*" or what have you, but if you're buying it to masturbate with and/or about, for purposes of this essay it's porn.) The porn serves its function and the experience is enhanced.

5) A's relationship with B, already weakened by (2,) now faces further competition in the erotic area from A's discovery of porn. If A has what is often now called a "fetish," although it rarely if ever actually rises to the level of a true fetish and is usually just what I would call a "predilection," and discovers porn of it - and whatever it is, there is porn of it - A may actually start experiencing erotic satisfaction that equals or exceeds anything they ever experienced with B.

6) In a healthy relationship, the predilection discovered in (5) could be introduced and explored by the partners and enrich their erotic interactions. (Which is pretty common and is why relationship counselors often recommend that couples experiment with using porn together.) However, this isn't a healthy relationship. So A continues using the porn by themselves. Since they still aren't getting what they need from B - and by this time A may have stopped trying to attain it, since the porn is serving as a viable alternative - they continue to explore it and search out new and possibly more extreme embodiments of whatever it is they're interested in.

7) Now A, who by this time is quite a connoisseur of whatever it is, can start losing erotic interest in things which are not associated with it. (At this point the thing may very well actually be fetishized by A, although that's still pretty rare.) Since B isn't associated with it and probably doesn't even know about it, and B wasn't providing whatever it was that A needed in the first place, that's yet another strike against B.

I think you can now see where the "vicious cycle" comes from. A didn't seek out porn because they had unrealistic expectations: A got unrealistic expectations from porn after reality failed to meet their realistic expectations and/or needs in the first place. Now why this is is subject to any number of explanations. B may just not like sex. A may be a boorish and unhygenic ingrate. "Hypotheses non fingo," as a wise man once said. But all this hue and cry over porn is just more smoke and mirrors in a society which already chokes and burns from an excess of same.

Some people, I hasten to admit, do seem to be born and/or arrive at true fetishes early in life, in much the same way that some people are born gay or transgendered or whatever. And whatever people do so long as they don't bother me, I am sure I don't care. But by and large, my suspicion is that people who are getting reasonable erotic needs met by their partners do not become obsessed with pornography. So stop blaming it for every ill which this neo-Puritan politically-correct society can invent. Much obliged.

S

*The book, not the TV series. Although I guess the TV series could be used similarly if such appeals to you.

Tags: pornography obsession affair sex fetish
Current Mood: cynical

Look, everybody.

This is really simple.

As a professor of mine once put it, "I only ask questions in two cases. When I already know what the answer is, or when I don't care what the answer is."

Unless you're making idle conversation, or you are inquiring because you need factual information which you do not possess, don't ask questions. Ever. There is absolutely no point. It can only turn out badly. Men instinctively know this, and while I'm sure there are lots of exceptions, only need a gentle reminder from time to time. That was it: guys, you're excused.

Say you're a woman, and you ask your significant other (which for the highly sex-biased point of view of this essay will be assumed to be a man,) "Why are you playing that video game when you need to be doing (some other thing)?" No matter how innocent you may feel about it, what you are doing is nagging. We do not like nagging. (Neither do you, although you may have forgotten, since in all likelihood the last person who nagged you was your mother. We, by and large, don't do that.)

Now, it matters not that he may have even said in the recent past, "I need to do (some other thing.)" In that case, if you must nag, make a statement in the form of a reminder. "Don't forget you said you needed to do (some other thing.)" If we forgot, we will thank you. Otherwise, remind us and then be quiet. Nagging us on our own behalves... is still nagging.

If you want to tell us something, tell us. Don't phrase it in the form of a question. Because I will guarantee you that no matter how much he loves you, when you ask him the above question or anything like it, the first things that come into his head, in this order, will be something like:

"1) Is she trying to tell me I'm lazy, childish, and/or posssesed of other ignoble qualities?"

and

"2) Oh, I don't know. Why are you making ornamental lampshades when the sink is full of dirty dishes and the kitchen floor hasn't been mopped in two years?"

See how this works? Non-factual questions are always interpreted as attacks, and will always provoke responsive questions which point out that you're not perfect, either. (If you are perfect, fuck you. Go find a perfect man and leave we poor mortal slobs alone.) There's no way to win this one, for anybody, especially since you're always telling us you want us to "communicate" and "be honest." Stop asking us questions.

We're playing the video game because that's what we want to do right now.

We're not thinking about anything, except maybe idle speculation on the odds that we'll get sex anytime in the near future.

Et cetera.

If you want us to do something, find a neutral way of telling us. ("I would like you to do (some other thing,) please," is a prime candidate.) Once. Then shut up. Either we'll do it or we won't. Nagging us might get us to do it a little faster but it is not worth the negative karma you will accumulate. If you have to nag your man all the time, it means one or both of two things: the man you're nagging isn't worth your effort and you should find a different one, or you're a shrew and you should leave him alone and find a man who likes shrews.

S

Tags: communicate, nag, question, questions, relationship
Current Mood: cynical

More advice for the X-chromosome advantaged in today's installment. I'm so good to you. Nothin' but love for ya.

Anyway, it seems like a high percentage of women's magazine column-inches are devoted to how to find a man and maintain a relationship. That is, the ones that aren't devoted to why men are pigs and women don't need 'em nohow. Which makes you wonder why the first set of articles are even there.

But I digress.

Ladies, let me save you enough money on women's magazines to enable you to buy any impulse items you want in the checkout lane from now until the day you die, as well as saving you probably months out of your life reading them and watching TV shows about the subject. You want to know how to get and keep a man?

Sex.

Okay, done. Don't thank me, just trying to help.

...

No, wait. I forgot for a second that this is being addressed to women. Women are actually much better about listening to explanations than men are, but they want more depth. So more words are in order. Analogy time.

In the business world, there are things called "dealbreakers" and things called "hidden hooks." A "dealbreaker" is something that, all by its ownself, will prevent a deal from happening - like requiring Jerry Falwell to publicly endorse gay marriage before you donate money to his church. A "hidden hook" is something that, once it's in the deal, makes the deal almost impossible to turn down or break even if the terms objectively just aren't that good - like giving free oil-changes and $1/gallon gas for life if you buy a car, but requiring you to get both from a specified service station.

In the relationship business, sex is both of these things. If a man doesn't get enough sex, it's a dealbreaker. At best, he'll be cranky, inattentive, and obnoxious. (No, more than usual. Really.) And at worst - which isn't a long walk - he's either going to cheat or ditch you and run for the treeline. And men just aren't good at cheating, so eventually the whole thing is going to go south on you no matter what you are prepared to put up with.

Good sex, on the other hand, is a hidden hook. If he gets good sex, he's not going to care that you haven't done the dishes for a month and your pants size has doubled since he met you. (Unless you get so big it interferes with the good sex.) Good sex has two components: quantity and quality. Provide sex of sufficient quality, sex in sufficient quantity, and/or a sufficient mix of both, and you're providing good sex. Happily, the two are, to a limited extent, interchangeable. A nice handjob every night beats mindshattering sex once every three months. An extended romp every Saturday night might make up for the fact that you're too tired (or secretly don't like sex anyway) the rest of the week.

Furthermore, quality is also made up of multiple factors. Duration*, intensity, and raunch are the three main components of quality sex. Again, they're somewhat interchangeable. A five-minute blowjob with a prostate massage and a facial is the good-sex equivalent of at least an hour of missionary sex. A nice, slow, langourous cowgirl grind session is good sex even if you won't let him keep the lights on for it.

Are you starting to see how this works?

Now, I'm not saying sex is the only way to get and keep a man. It's not. But the thing is, it's the easy way. Very little fuss, only the occasional muss. Make with the good sex, and the rest of the time you can play Peg Bundy/Ivana Trump, if that's your thing. And you might even learn to like it!

If you don't want to do it, then you have to go the "Ten Tips To Keep Your Relationship Fresh" route. And do the dishes. And cook. And so forth. Or else you have to settle for a man who can't get a woman who will either put out or do the laundry on a regular basis. Is that the kind of man you want?

I didn't think so.

Peace out.

S

*By the way, I do admit that a lot of men are too lazy to care about duration. My advice on that topic is to dump a man who doesn't appreciate an extended session, unless of course you secretly don't like sex anyway and aren't interested in using that particular part of the arsenal. If you take the rest of my advice, you'll at least be able to trade up from that lazy bastard.

Tags: advice, fidelity, keep, man, marriage, men, relationship, sex, woman, women
Current Mood: cynical

Ladies!

Would you like to know why you don't get oral pleasures from your man more often?

Well, it could be any number of things. He could be a big dork who's afraid to do it because he'll get Wuss Cooties. He could be immaturely disgusted by the idea. It might just not occur to him, because he's clueless and/or selfish.

However, there is a very real possibility which is something you should seriously consider.

Maybe you SMELL bad.

Which may or may not (usually not, surprisingly, but sometimes) include tasting bad.

Here's the thing. Both sexes have multipurpose equipment. And yes, obviously we were designed by civil engineers (who else would put the playground between two sewers?) I'm not saying men are inherently superior in this department. We do tend to be, on average, less attuned to hygiene generally. No argument.

But your hair is a lot closer to the source. If you let it grow long and luxuriant, it tends to absorb and hold odors. Like weewee. Not to mention other secretions. If you smoke, or you drink a lot of coffee, or, God help us, both, that shit can get seriously rank. No joke. Bad enough if we draw back our hands smelling like your bad habits. Sticking our noses into it is above and beyond the call of duty and, to be blunt, it's not fair to expect it, even if - and for a lot of you, be honest, this is a big if - you return the favor.

Yeah, okay, especially for we carnivorous males, the end product can, as I understand it, also leave a lot to be desired tastewise. But that's the end product. Most of you don't (won't) have much if anything to do with it anyway. If your undies are retaining residue, we get assaulted with it start to finish, and then we smell it for a long time after.

I'm not lobbying for the Brazillian here. Admittedly, there are two kinds of men: men who like women shaved and men who lie about it. But it can be a real pain and I can gracefully admit that if you don't want to go bald, it's not entirely unreasonable. Besides, like I said, if you drink a lot of coffee or smoke a lot, it won't entirely address the problem anyway.

But trim that shit up. Keep it neat and keep it short and, for fuck's sake, keep it clean. A quick swipe with a soapy washcloth every night. (You have to use a little soap or something. Just water doesn't cut it. Those little premoistened wipes are just the ticket.) Make sure you wipe well after peeing. If, like some women - and I know this is not your fault - you sometimes involuntarily release a little urine when you laugh or cough or whatever, wash up and change your damn underwear when circumstances allow. Don't trust your own nose, either. We have a hard time smelling ourselves, it's basic biology. If in doubt, clean it up.

You don't have to taste like strawberries and smell like a spring morning. Tasting and smelling like a woman is fine. But even Napoleon didn't want Josephine to smell like old undies and reprocessed French Roast, okay? Just clean it up. I can't promise this will get you more time on the Tongue Train. But I absolutely guarantee that it will not hurt.

Tags: dirty, explanation, female, oral, pleasure, sex, smell
Current Mood: cynical

Y'ever get stuck in traffic and eventually come upon an accident? But then you realize that the accident happened in traffic, and you wonder how people could get in an accident when they should have been moving at low speed and paying attention to what's going on?

Well, I'll tell you what causes accidents in traffic jams. Other than cell phones. Which are bad enough.

Time to think.

Yep, you're sitting there, noplace to go, breathing fumes, burning expensive gas, nothing to do but think. You're probably either going someplace you really don't want to go or else coming from someplace you didn't really want to be (or else why would you be out in the damn traffic?) And you don't think about happy stuff when you're stuck in traffic. For instance, today while I was stuck in traffic, I was thinking about how to word my Craigslist ad looking for a mistress. (No, not the leather-clad kind, just the fooling-around kind. But that's a story for another day.) Anyway, that's the kind of thing I mean. Gloomy. You lose your distraction from the fact that we're all just organic pain-collectors hurtling toward oblivion.

And thus the fatal spark is struck.

Eventually, you sit there, going nowhere - which is entirely too metaphorical in and of itself - and you think about depressing things, and for some people, the urge to just floor the accelerator and try to take yourself or at least the FUCKHEAD in front of you who WON'T KEEP UP WITH THE TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE KEEP SLIPPING IN FRONT OF HIM AND MAKING IT EVEN WORSE FOR EVERYBODY BEHIND HIM right the Hell out becomes too much. You drop it, damn the insurance companies, full speed ahead. And then everybody's even more fucked than they were before, but at least you have something worse than being stuck in traffic to worry about, and it's almost certainly enough distraction to stop you thinking again, which is pretty much the best you can hope for in life.

S

Tags: accident, car, jam, oblivion, suicide, think
Current Mood: cynical

A lot of people make a lot of fuss about the fact that the divorce rate in America, if properly cooked by said fussbudgets, is around 50%, with the strong implication (if not outright statement) that if only the fussbudget's pet cause (family values, religion, counseling, drugs, pornography) were given the attention it deserves, the rate would plummet.

Well, that's a load.

The problem isn't that 50% of people are divorcing, the problem is that 50% of people are staying married. The rate isn't too high, it's too low.

I can only assume that half the population lacks the gumption or the guts to get the Hell out. Or maybe just the brains. Either people are just too lazy, too cowardly, or too stupid to admit to themselves that the screwing they're not getting is not worth the screwing they might get and that the vast majority of people really aren't wired to be monogamous for sixty fucking years. (Sixty months is pushing it, in my opinion.)

But, unlike most things, there is a ray of hope here. The rate doesn't seem to be dropping much even with the Come to Jeebus culture having the upper hand in most matters social at the moment. Maybe people are catching on that marriage is a demeaning, pointless intrusion by Government and the Church into what should be private matters. And that its purpose is to turn men into martyrs, women into shrews, and everybody into hypocrites who feel so trapped and helpless that they just roll over and take the rest of the shafting they get from society.

Nah. Likely people just are getting more selfish.

But I'll take it.

S

Tags: divorce, futility, government, marriage, men, rate, religion, women
Current Mood: (Default Setting On)